Last Updated: October 12, 2026 
Lindsay Clancy’s defense is seeking an opportunity to present evidence about alleged juror conduct as it attempts to prevent a second trial following a mistrial in her Massachusetts murder case.
Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has asked Plymouth Superior Court Judge William Sullivan to allow witnesses to testify at a November 2 hearing concerning the conduct of a holdout juror and the defense’s separate claim that retrying Clancy would violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
The request follows the judge’s denial of Clancy’s latest bid for a finding of not guilty. The defense maintains that the court should examine concerns about the jury before deciding whether the criminal charges can proceed.
Defense Requests Evidence and Witness Testimony
In a recent motion, Reddington asked the court to permit the defense to present evidence rather than decide the pending issues solely from written submissions.
The request concerns allegations involving Michael P. Desronvil, the only juror reportedly favoring a conviction when the jury deadlocked during Clancy’s first trial. The defense wants to examine whether the circumstances surrounding the juror and the jury’s deliberations should have been investigated before Judge Sullivan declared a mistrial.
The defense has also asked the judge to postpone the hearing if the court cannot consider the evidence on November 2.
Reddington has indicated that Clancy intends to seek appellate review if the judge denies the double-jeopardy motion without allowing an evidentiary hearing. That position remains a defense argument; no appellate ruling on the issue has been issued.
Brownstone Law previously covered the defense’s initial requests in Lindsay Clancy Seeks Holdout-Juror Investigation and Dismissal After Mistrial.
Holdout Juror Became a Point of Dispute Before the Mistrial
Clancy’s first murder trial ended in a mistrial on September 4, 2026, after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. The reported division was 11-1, with 11 jurors prepared to find Clancy not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility and one juror favoring conviction.
During the final stages of deliberations, concerns were raised about whether the holdout juror was following the court’s instructions and participating appropriately in deliberations. Other jurors reportedly alleged that he was not applying the reasonable-doubt standard and sometimes used his cellphone during deliberations.
The defense argues that these concerns warranted further inquiry before the judge ended the trial. It maintains that a closer examination of the circumstances might have affected how the court handled the reported deadlock.
The allegations have not been established as judicial findings. The request for an evidentiary hearing does not, by itself, prove that the juror engaged in misconduct.
Double-Jeopardy Motion Could Affect Whether Clancy Faces a Retrial
The defense’s request for an evidentiary hearing is connected to its separate motion seeking dismissal of the murder charges on double-jeopardy grounds.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment generally protects defendants against successive prosecutions for the same offense. However, a mistrial caused by a genuinely deadlocked jury will ordinarily permit a retrial when the legal requirements for ending the first trial without a verdict are met.
Clancy’s defense challenges whether the circumstances justified declaring a mistrial without first examining the issues raised about the holdout juror. The defense contends that the judge should have considered whether further inquiry or another appropriate measure could have addressed the problem before ending the trial.
The court must decide whether the facts and applicable law support the requested dismissal. The defense’s filing does not automatically prevent prosecutors from pursuing another trial.
For additional background, Brownstone Law explains the governing principles in What Is Double Jeopardy? Can You Be Tried for the Same Crime Twice?.
Judge Previously Denied Clancy’s Request for Acquittal
The evidentiary-hearing request follows another setback for the defense.
On October 1, Judge Sullivan denied Clancy’s request for a required finding of not guilty. The defense had argued that prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the murder charges.
The judge concluded that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He also determined that the conflicting expert testimony concerning Clancy’s criminal responsibility presented questions for a jury to resolve.
The denial did not amount to a conviction or resolve the separate constitutional challenge. Clancy’s defense continues to seek dismissal through its double-jeopardy motion.
Brownstone Law previously reported on that ruling in Judge Denies Lindsay Clancy’s Acquittal Request After Mistrial.
What Happens Next?
The next scheduled hearing is November 2, 2026, when Judge Sullivan is expected to consider several outstanding post-trial motions. These include the defense’s request concerning the holdout juror, its request for access to juror records, and its motion to dismiss the charges on double-jeopardy grounds.
The court has not yet granted the request to present witness testimony at an evidentiary hearing. The judge’s handling of that request could affect how the defense develops its arguments before the court rules on the pending motions.
As of the latest available reporting, prosecutors had not announced whether they intend to retry Clancy. She remains charged with three counts of first-degree murder in connection with the deaths of her three children in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.
The November 2 hearing is not a confirmed retrial date. The future of the prosecution will depend on the court’s rulings and any subsequent decision by prosecutors.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects publicly reported proceedings and filings available as of October 12, 2026. Allegations contained in pending motions should not be treated as established facts or judicial findings. The denial of Clancy’s acquittal request is not a conviction, and the court has not ruled that the alleged juror misconduct occurred.
